It should first be emphasized that our aim was not to
construct a Food Composition Table for local foodstuffs but,
rather, to evaluate the degree of accuracy that can be expected
from nutrient-intake data calculated from a Food Composition
Table for Use in Latin America (i.e. recommended for this
purpose).

It is apparent that differences of up to one order of
magnitude can be found between the results of our local analysis
and the values for some nutrients given by the INCAP table (the
vitamin C content of green pepper determined here was 20 times
higher than that given by the table). Of particular interest was
the observation that nearly all the values for iron content were
below 50 per cent of the value given by the INCAP table. It can
readily be appreciated that the use of the table leads to an
overestimation of iron consumption, and to reconciling the
dietary data with the high prevalence of iron-deficiency anaemia
found in the region [2, 11,22]. It is also interesting to note
that no value for the iron content of the 20 foodstuffs analysed
here fell within 80-120 per cent of the value in the INCAP table.
Equally interesting is the fact that the protein content of the
so-called "sources of protein" showed little difference
between the two values compared here. This might be the
starting-point for suggesting that nutrient composition data
could be divided into two categories: those of nutrients that
show a high variation - probably attributable to regional
differences (soil, climate, season, species) - and those of
nutrients in some foodstuffs that show very little variation,
probably insignificant for dietary evaluation purposes. Minerals
and some vitamins are likely examples of the first category,
while protein - being a compulsory component of foodstuffs
derived from animal or plant tissues - could be a good example of
the second category. Appropriate software for identifying the
members of each category could be easily developed, and there are
probably enough data available from various food composition
tables to be used for this purpose.

a. Food consumption data are from a survey in Agua Preta,
Pernambuco [2].

Vitamin A nutriture constitutes a problem that should be
looked at - in our region - from another angle. It is apparent
that the difference in the figures for consumption resulting from
the use of the INCAP table and our results is not enough to
explain a lack of prevalence of severe signs of vitamin A
deficiency [2, 6, 7, 12] which is not compatible with the very
low vitamin A intakes reported in several surveys [2, 9, 12]. One
possible explanation might be that some regional fruits, with a
very high carotene and carotenoids content, are consumed by the
population but not reported in the surveys. We have observed that
the fact that some of these fruits are not actually
"bought" may lead the population not to consider them
as "foods." Thus, a significant contribution to vitamin
A intake may have been overlooked in the past.

The problem of regional differences in nutrient composition -
and the difficulties generated by the use of food consumption
tables which are, most of the time, inadequate for specific
situations - is well known. Our data have only shown what the
practical implication of this may be, and one way to reconcile
dietary data with other indicators of the nutritional status. Our
data on "dish-nutrient composition" (fig. 1) shows
another very serious drawback in the analysis of survey data with
the aid of food composition tables: the so-called
"foods-as-eaten" problem. In theory, there has never
been any reason to consider as reliable "recipe composition
data," i.e. the compound nutrient composition of a dish,
obtained by addition of the contribution of each single (raw)
ingredient.

This approach ignores liability to heat of a great many
nutrients, and losses that may result from chemical reactions as
a consequence of the interaction between ingredients which are
"incubated" for variable periods at 100°C or more.
From a chemical view, feijoada was the dish to undergo the most
drastic treatment (see recipe) and, in keeping with this, losses
of 66 to 95 per cent were observed for protein and vitamin A
respectively, regardless of the nutrient composition value used
for the "recipe calculation." It was beyond the scope
of this work to determine the actual causes for these losses, and
we are first to admit that that of protein was the most
intriguing. But the obvious conclusion is that food composition
tables cannot continue to be used, without restriction, for
calculating nutrient intakes.

The number of foodstuffs and nutrients analysed here was very
modest. One should bear in mind, however, that sweet potatoes,
cassava flour, sugar, beans, and a little meat account for more
than 70 per cent of the daily food intake of the underprivileged
in this region [2], as well as in most of the rest of the
country. This is what we consider to be "alimentary
monotony." Regarding nutrients, our contention is that
emphasis should always be given to those capable of generating,
by deficient or excessive intake, public health problems. These
nutrients would include protein, vitamin A, and iron; the list
would vary according to region, but would certainly be limited in
each case.

It is becoming increasingly important to count on reliable
sources of accurate data for nutrient intake evaluation in
connection with a number of nutrition-related diseases.

Our data show that food composition tables do not meet
accuracy requirements when the analysis involves foods that are
not consumed raw, and where the presence and amount of nutrients
in foodstuffs are very dependent on local conditions, mainly soil
composition. This work also shows that dietary data can be
reconciled with related clinical and biochemical indicators.

The First ASIA FOODS Conference was held from 17 to 21
September 1984 [2]. A total of 22 representatives from 12 Asian
countries, as well as 17 resource persons and observers, met in
Bangkok to review the current status of food composition data
among Asian countries and to discuss the needs to improve food
composition data generation, compilation, and use within Asia. An
interim executive committee was appointed, with a representative
each from Nepal, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, the Philippines, the
Republic of Korea, and Japan; Dr. Aree Valyasevi of Thailand was
appointed as the chairman of the committee. The executive
committee subsequently met in Manila on 18-19 February 1985 [1]
to: compile a regional survey of needs relating to food
composition data; develop mechanisms for collaboration both
within and outside the region; adopt statutes for the ASIA FOODS
organization; and develop a five-year action plan' as well as
proposals to obtain the assistance required to accomplish the
plan.

Because Asia is the largest continent, with a population of
over 2 billion, ASIA FOODS has agreed to divide it into three
subregions. Those countries invited to participate in the initial
ASIA FOODS meeting were distributed among the three subregions as
follows:

These divisions of ASIA FOODS attempt to reflect not only
geographical proximity within the Asian continent, but also
similarities between the climates, agricultures, and consequently
food availability and dietary patterns. By this consolidation
into similar subregions, data and analytical methodologies can be
shared between the countries of the subregion and ASIA FOODS,
resulting in the effective generation, compilation, and
dissemination of high-quality food composition data.

Considering the size of Asia and the consequent geographical
and cultural diversity of the continent, these subdivisions are
difficult to make, and all contain compromises with regard to the
criteria of categorization employed. None the less, all current
members of ASIAFOODS collectively developed this regionalization
as a necessary administrative structure, and are satisfied with
its arrangement.

With regard to foods produced and consumed within the member
countries of ASIAFOODS, there is, of course, tremendous diversity
and variety. The range of available species of land and sea
animals in addition to the cultivars of fruits and vegetables
spanning the region is truly immense. Within each of the regions,
however, there are sufficient similarities to allow for the
systematic development, utilization, and sharing of necessary
methologies.

The national surveys of foods produced, imported, and
exported, as reported at the First ASIAFOODS Conference, indicate
that the staples for the countries within the region are provided
by a wide variety of indigenous cereals and tubers. These are
supplemented by the importation of both indigenous and exotic
foodstuffs.

For the region as a whole, wheat, maize, rice, dairy products,
edible oils, frozen meats, and live animals seem to represent the
predominant food imports. Exports consist of many of the imports
listed above (excluding wheat and maize), with the addition of
freshwater and saltwater fish, shellfish, tropical fruits,
spices, coconut, and raw and refined sugar.

The subregion of East Asia leads ASIAFOODS in the production
and consumption of processed or "manufactured" foods,
and in their importation of the unprocessed agricultural products
used in those foods. There is, as yet, no significant exportation
from this subregion of either processed or unprocessed foods,
although internally there is some international trade in these
commodities.

The South-East subregion is characterized largely by the
importation of basic food commodities for consumption as dietary
staples, along with that of foods that are not widely produced in
the region (predominantly dairy products). This is offset by the
export of a wide variety of foods, including tropical fruits,
seafoods, coconut, and cassava.

The countries of the East and South-East Asia subregions all
depend upon rice as the universal staple, with the exception of
Papua New Guinea, where the consumption of rice continues to
increase. Each of these nations also has a proportionally large
seacoast, and so seafoods represent a major part of the available
food.

The South Asia subregion would have to be considered a slight
net importer of foodstuffs, again with dietary staples being
imported and tropical agricultural products - notably fruit,
spices, and tea - being exported. Some localities within this
subregion suffer from a food deficit, and consequently the
inhabitants rely upon wild plants for food on a seasonal or, in
some cases, a continual basis. There exist throughout this
subregion traditional food processing methods, in addition to
rapidly developing modern food-processing technologies; all of
these food categories are very much in need of nutrient analysis.

The South Asia subregion contains India and China (both vast
countries), which, along with Nepal, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh,
share rice and wheat as the predominant staples. They both
contain landlocked localities and areas with ready access to the
sea. Although there are local variations, underlying similarities
exist throughout China and India, and carry over to the countries
adjacent to them.

The diversity of available foods within the ASIAFOODS region
is perhaps exceeded only by the region's cultural diversity,
which is expressed through the culinary and dietary traditions of
the various peoples. Again, it is intended that the subregions
capitalize upon the consistencies inherent within each subregion.